Skip to content


Uma Shankar Vs. Gobind Narayan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in80Ind.Cas.6
AppellantUma Shankar
RespondentGobind Narayan and anr.
Cases Referred and Mohesh Lal v. Busunt Kumaree
Excerpt:
limitation act (v of 1908), section 19 - acknowledgment of liability--acknowledgment written by agent bearing name of principal, whether sufficient--authority to acknowledge liability. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]. - 2, is a good acknowledgment of liability so as to extend limitation against the defendant appellant within the meaning of section 19 of the limitation act...........that he was, on the ground of an admission made by the defendant that piyare lal used to write letters on behalf of his principal. no evidence was offered by the plaintiffs on this point. no question was put as to whether this particular letter was written by the authority of the principal or as to whether piyare lal was authorised to acknowledge debts on behalf of his principal. it was distinctly denied that he was authorised to execute a hundi. we think that the mere fact that the defendant used to write letters on behalf of his principal is not sufficient in law to enable the court to infer that he was an authorised agent for the purpose of making an acknowledgment of liability. on this ground we allow the appeal and as the suit apart from the acknowledgment was admittedly beyond.....
Judgment:

1. The only question in this appeal is whether a certain letter, Ex. 2, is a good acknowledgment of liability so as to extend limitation against the defendant appellant within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The letter purports to be from the defendant's firm Ram Charan Jagdish Prasad to the plaintiffs' firm Sheo Baksh Sri Narain-As far as the contents of the letter are concerned it contains an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to come within the Section. It was written by Piyare Lal the Munim of the defendant. It bears no signature other than the name of the firm in the heading of the letter. Such a signature has, however, been held to be good in Mathura Das v. Babu Lal, 1 A. 688 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 477 and Mohesh Lal v. Busunt Kumaree 6 C. 940 : 7 C.L.R. 121 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 222. The question remains, however, whether there is proof that Piyare Lal was authorised to make an acknowledgment on behalf of his principal within the meaning of Explanation 2 of the Section. The Court below holds that he was, on the ground of an admission made by the defendant that Piyare Lal used to write letters on behalf of his principal. No evidence was offered by the plaintiffs on this point. No question was put as to whether this particular letter was written by the authority of the principal or as to whether Piyare Lal was authorised to acknowledge debts on behalf of his principal. It was distinctly denied that he was authorised to execute a hundi. We think that the mere fact that the defendant used to write letters on behalf of his principal is not sufficient in law to enable the Court to infer that he was an authorised agent for the purpose of making an acknowledgment of liability. On this ground we allow the appeal and as the suit apart from the acknowledgment was admittedly beyond time we dismiss the suit with costs in all Courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //